My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-09-1992 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1992
>
03-09-1992 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2024 2:04:56 PM
Creation date
3/5/2024 2:02:41 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
212
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
1^- <br />& : <br />#-v-’ <br />;<'-’ :' \* ■ <br />Ifl-'v"' <br />m-'W- <br />■fe. <br />i>,r •" <br />fvv <br />.m <br />*-:f, <br />^■ <br />•'-■' ■■ L"',,• j <br />k - ■ <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD FEBRUARY 24, 1992 <br />ZONING FILE #1682 - CONT. <br />Callahan asked how the trusses got there in tne first place. <br />Mertz noted Brickley ordered thenfi ahead of time, and due to a mis <br />interpretation of the Planning Commission action, went ahead with <br />the project. He agreed there was no excuse for not getting a <br />permit. He asked If the Council would have agreed to the proposal <br />It Brickley had required the removal of the ugly sheds to be <br />replaced with a new garage in the correct sequence. <br />Jabbour stated that he did not believe there was such a thing as <br />ugly buildings. He stated the issue is excessive hardcover and <br />structural encroachment. <br />Mayor Peterson asked Barrett if the past decision could be changed. <br />Barrett stated that they did have the authority to change their <br />past decision, but a motion would have to oe made by a person who <br />voted for the prevailing side. <br />Mayor Peterson reiterated that Brickley did not stay through the <br />motion at the last Council meeting when this was discussed, and <br />noted she did not mention tabling the application at that meeting. <br />Brickley stated that she had everything written out and that was <br />the first sentence. <br />Jabbour felt that all issues regarding this application have been <br />a misunderstanding. He noted that the project was not done in the <br />proper sequence, and felt that Council has tried to work with the <br />applicant. He reminded he^ that they are not in the business of <br />redesigning her lifestyle, buildings or land, and that is why the <br />issue was voted on at the last meeting. <br />Gaffron stated that the resolution allows underpinning of the slab <br />to move the westerly wal I , b t ♦•o al low the excess slab to remain. <br />Mertz announced that Bric.Moy would agree to removal of the <br />southern excess portion of the slab if the garage was allowed to <br />remain In its present location. <br />Callahan noted that the Planning Commission suggested that removal <br />at the first review of this application.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.